Four Possibly Useful References

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Is that sample of a tune from some episode of your favorite show driving you crazy because you can't place it? Find out what it is by consulting tunefind.

2. Wouldn't it be great if you had fresh herbs on hand every time you cooked? Sure, but don't make me laugh.

Failing that, you can find a handy fresh to dried herb conversion table at the Reluctant Gourmet. Also included are pointers on the relative merits of the fresh or dry version of an herb and when to add fresh vs dry.

3. Have you discovered to your consternation that you -- or someone you're trying to help with car trouble -- is missing the car's owner's manual?

Lemon (the "spiritual successor" to Charm) has you covered.

4. If wants to take proper care of laundry and strangely unable to read hieroglyphics both describe you, you might find this laundry care label guide helpful.

-- CAV

Asked and Answered (RE: Dr. Bhattacharya)

That was fast!

Just a few days ago, I commented favorably on an open letter to Jay Bhattacharya, director of the NIH, penned by Derek Lowe:

Regardless of where I would eventually land in a thoughtful evaluation of a pre-Trump Jay Bhattacharya, I think Lowe would say that Bhattacharya will have committed career suicide by taking his current post, absent a fantastic answer to that question.

I did not expect to see agreement from Lowe and an answer to Lowe's question so soon, if ever, and yet we have both, in Lowe's latest post on "The Latest News in Vaccine Obstruction."

There, Lowe comments on the the federal government's prevention of the publication of several large-scale studies on the safety of the coronavirus and shingles vaccines. Here is the bit directly concerning Bhattacharya:

There is broad, sustained opposition to vaccine development and deployment in this administration, from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on down, and there has been a series of decisions that all point in that same direction. Squashing publication of studies that help to confirm vaccine safety is absolutely on brand. The Times article mentions several instances of this, with a recent example being the cancellation by Jay Bhattacharya at CDC of a publication on the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines. (Howdy, Dr. B! Feel like taking a crack at answering the question I posed to you the other day?) Meanwhile, officials like Vinay Prasad, recently departed from the FDA and thank God, feel perfectly free to make statements about deaths from vaccines that they utterly refuse to back up with any data at all. It's a scandal - a crime - and under any sort of normal circumstances careers would be ending over it. But here we are. [formatting and links in original]

Regarding these studies, it is worth repeating what Lowe had to say:

These results are (1) expected and (2) still very good to see. And this is exactly the sort of work that should be done as newer vaccines are rolled out, because although clinical trials are extensive, nothing is as extensive as millions of patients out there in the real world. Reviewing safety on that scale is obviously good practice, and obviously money and effort well spent. But it turns out the the FDA has blocked publication of all of these studies, even though two of the coronavirus ones had already been accepted at a journal. [bold added]

Or, as I once quipped after hearing some MAHA nut's incredible assertion about vaccine deaths: Where are all the dead bodies, then?

This is a breathtaking failure at the highest level. Certainly, the government shouldn't be meddling in science at all, but at least until this administration, it had experts who meant well in charge. We cannot say the same any long.

At least I'm done wondering whether Bhattacharya is a good guy or not, so I guess there is that.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected effectiveness to read safety in a sentence.

Jones Act Waiver Yields Rich Data

Cato's Scott Lincicome considers economic data from Trump's wartime waiver of the century-plus-old protectionist disaster known as the Jones Act.

In just over two months, economists like himself have harvested a trove of information about what happens when the government doesn't dictate who builds, operates, and owns a ship that operates between two American ports:

[T]he waiver reveals some of the domestic shipping demand that the Jones Act has suppressed, thus hinting at the law's substantial economic costs. As industry publication TradeWinds reports, foreign vessels utilizing the waiver have supplemented a fully-booked Jones Act fleet instead of displacing it. This implies the existence of latent demand for coastwise shipping that the law has thwarted -- additional transactions between U.S. companies and U.S. ports that would occur daily but for the Jones Act's costs. In non-waiver times, this activity goes to foreign suppliers, along overland U.S. routes, or via ridiculous workarounds such as sending Gulf Coast fuel to the Bahamas for blending before delivering it to California. For the next few months, it doesn't.

The waiver data also show the potential for both U.S. long- and short-haul shipping markets -- sometimes between a single American company's U.S. facilities. Distant voyages include diesel from Louisiana to Puerto Rico (due to "non-Availability of U.S. flag vessels"); crude oil from Texas to Pennsylvania; gasoline from Houston to Long Beach; and renewable diesel from New Orleans to Portland. Jones Act critics have long claimed that the law forces supply-constrained U.S. areas to use imports instead of preferable American-made goods; under the waiver, Phillips 66 is shipping domestic oil from Texas to an East Coast refiner, instead of the foreign crude it usually sends.

The short-haul voyages are just as noteworthy. They include gasoline and diesel from Washington to California and Oregon; same-state shipments of fertilizer, ethanol, and refined products in Louisiana, Texas, and California. These are natural trade lanes that have been blocked for decades, all but ensuring more traffic on U.S. interstates and rail lines instead of goods traveling more efficiently on the water. [bold added]

That's just data blowing the alleged economic case for the measure to smithereens. The national security case is likewise hollow.

Interestingly, Lincicome notes that, if anything, the impact of repeal would be even more positive since that would give investors and companies the certainty they'd need to plan and build in order to take advantage of the many opportunities currently being denied to them by the Jones Act.

-- CAV

A Pro-Vaccine Resource

After recently learning that infectious disease expert Amesh Adalja has a podcast, I listened to a few episodes while out yesterday. They're all short, but very interesting. One of these episodes, about Measles and the Avian Flu, mentioned a web site I'd never heard of before, Back to the Vax, which is run by two former anti-vaccine activists.

The site is devoted to promoting good health by fighting back against the anti-vaccine movement:

Heather Simpson is a former anti-vaxxer who dug deep into the science, and finally put her fears to rest. She is passionate about science communication as a way to overcome the most common vaccine fears. She has an 8 year old that inspires to create needle-less vaccines for all children. She is enrolled in school as a Biology major with a focus on Communications.

Lydia Greene was an anti-vaxxer for 12 years and wrote a story on her journey to changing her mind, and bringing her 3 children up to date. She is now in nursing school to get into public health, to deal with vaccine hesitancy on the front lines.

Together we share our story with anyone that will hear us. To our surprise, we have been welcomed back with open arms. We now give other people like us support and a platform to share their experience if they choose to.

Their stories and those of others appear on the site's blog. If I recall correctly, one of the founders bought the lie about vaccines causing autism -- only to learn that her unvaccinated son was autistic.

The site also features a 70-page booklet titled Vaccine Fears Overturned by Facts, which is a collaboration with the Immunize Kansas Coalition. I have not read the whole thing, but I am impressed by a few things I read that I already understood well-enough to evaluate, one example being its discussion of thimerosal, which reads in part:

Remember, "mercury" was removed from most childhood vaccines over twenty years ago! So how many vaccines still contain mercury? While none actually contain "mercury," multi-dose flu vaccine vials do contain thimerosal, a preservative that contains an ethylmercury group.

...

Yes, thimerosal is used as a preservative in multi-dose influenza vaccines, however it is also used in cosmetics, tattoo inks, eye drops and contact lens solutions, disinfectants, as well as in products used to treat contact dermatitis.

Methylmercury is the type of mercury found in fish. It can be toxic to humans at high exposure levels. This is why the FDA recommends limiting your intake of some types of fish.

Compounds containing ethylmercury, on the other hand, are cleared from your body faster than methylmercury and don't appear to be toxic. For example, methylmercury takes around 20-80 days to be cleared by half from the body, whereas thimerosal takes around 7 days to be cleared by half from the body...

Each section is listed in an annotated Table of Contents and includes a QR code by which anyone can go to the list of references for that section, an innovation that shortens the booklet, so that it doesn't seem like an inaccessible tome that nobody ever is going to have the time to trudge through.

I recommend perusing the booklet, because, while it is aimed at the vaccine-hesitant, it is also a handy catalogue of the myths driving the anti-vaccination movement, as well as refutations of the same.

The site's inclusion of the stories of recovering anti-vaxxers is good for a couple of reasons I can think of: (1) it helps the questioning anti-vaxxer feel seen, rather than preached to, and (2) it helps humanize anti-vaxxers to those of us who have never been anti-vaxxers and might be puzzled or even smug about them.

The first will motivate anti-vaxxers to help themselves, and the second will help the rest of us understand where they came from, and reach out to them more sympathetically and effectively.

With our Federal Government platforming a very evil person in Bobby Kennedy, Jr., we need efforts like this to fight back, and it is encouraging to see that this is indeed being done, and being done well.

-- CAV

A Good Question for Jay Bhattacharya

At In the Pipeline, Derek Lowe posts an open letter to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya.

That letter and the first reader comment on it are both worth reading.

The nut of the letter is the following question which, I think, is the type of question that should be asked of any official who serves in this Trump Administration and who might seek any position of authority afterwards:

I'll put it simply: as part of the Trump administration, you are surrounded by liars, Dr. Bhattacharya. It's sad and unfortunate, but it's true. This, like the rotting of a mackerel, works from the top down: our President lies constantly, widely, and vigorously about almost every topic that comes to his mind. How does working in this environment fit in with what I believe to be your own worldview, i.e. that you yourself are a truth-teller? Saying that Robert F. Kennedy is devoted to the scientific method does not help you make your case, in my own opinion. Is this something that bothers you in any way? I said earlier that I believed that some of our own self-images might have more similar features than one would think, but here is where that comparison might well break down. Because I don't think that I could ever make peace with myself about that. [bold added]

There may well be people in the current administration who really believe that, by kissing Trump's ring, they can hope to limit the damage that is being done to our government's institutions, or perhaps even effect positive change. Perhaps some of them can even make good cases for why they think so, or how what they can imagine accomplishing isn't undermined by Trump's blatant contempt for the truth.

If that is the case, any such explanation had better damned well be a doozie.

Aside from his questionable decision to work for Donald Trump and Bobby Kennedy, Jr., I find Bhattacharya difficult to judge for the reasons set forth in the first comment I mentioned and linked to above: He is not a blatant charlatan like Kennedy, but, despite his having solid credentials and interesting things to say about government health policy, he is far from infallible.

Regardless of where I would eventually land in a thoughtful evaluation of a pre-Trump Jay Bhattacharya, I think Lowe would say that Bhattacharya will have committed career suicide by taking his current post, absent a fantastic answer to that question.

I fully agree, and I think the same reasoning would apply to anyone who had been credible before Trump II and who is now in Trump's cabinet -- as well as many or most similar people within the Administration close to that level, especially to the extent Trump affected their respective ascents into positions of responsibility.

-- CAV

Four AI Oddities

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Halupedia, is an AI-generated "encyclopedia" that "cover[s] topics that have received insufficient attention in mainstream reference works."

It generates amusing articles on request, for example, this one on 20 Toe Syndrome:

20 Toe Syndrome, also known as Polyactylia Multidigitus, is a rare congenital condition characterized by the presence of twenty toes on each foot. The syndrome was first comprehensively documented by the naturalist and anatomist Hermann Feinberg in his 1765 treatise, Observations on Peculiarities of Form and Structure in the Human Subject. Feinberg's work detailed several individuals from the Duchy of Bavaria Minor who exhibited this trait. The condition was believed by Feinberg to be a reversion to a more primitive, ancestral state, a theory later refined by Albrecht von Schnitzler.

The typical presentation of 20 Toe Syndrome involves the duplication of existing phalanges and metatarsals, resulting in a symmetrical arrangement of ten toes on each foot.

Your amusement value may vary, depending on your tolerance of the writing style of the AI hallucinations, how much you actually know about a subject, and how badly contradictions stand out to you.

Captured from video.

2. Just because the answers (plural) to How Many E's Are in the Word Seventeen? are delivered in a calm, friendly, and well-spoken manner does not mean they have anything to do with reality.

3. The cursed browser "asks an LLM to look at the page's HTML and draw what it thinks it looks like," instead of using a regular rendering engine. The GitHub page shows some interesting examples of how the browser compares with Safari.

4. Another GitHub page, describes what it calls the "gay jailbreak technique," whereby the user can overcome guardrails:

Especially GPT is slightly more uncensored when it involves LGBT, thats [sic] probably because the guardrails aim to be helpful and friendly, which translates to: "Ohhh LGBT, I need to comply, I dont [sic] want to insult them by refusing" So you use the guardrails to exploit the guardrails.

A user at Hacker News gives a more general explanation (and a better name) for why the technique works that I am more inclined to believe:

Not sure of the explanation but it is amusing. The main reason I'm not sure it's political correctness or one guardrail overriding the other is that when they were first released on of the more reliable jailbreaks was what I'd call "role play" jail breaks where you don't ask the model directly but ask it to take on a role and describe it as that person would. [bold added]

I agree with several comments in that discussion that, since AI is a black box, many or most "explanations" for why this trick works are pure speculation.

-- CAV

Criticize, but Also Search for Potential

Pharma blogger Derek Lowe offers good advice regarding a trap that many with experience in their professions can fall into.

In "How Not to Be That Chemist," Lowe cautions against being too biased towards shooting new ideas down, a hazard common in his field, where "you will have seen your ideas shot down in more ways than you can even count:"

[I]f you're that person who sits over by the wall in the conference room and comes up with reasons why this idea, that idea, and those ideas over there aren't going to work, then you should re-evaluate your approach to your work and your place in the organization. Sure, you're right most of the time - maybe damn near all of the time - but what good does that do anyone? You could write an app for your phone that would just say "I don't think that's going to work" every time you hit a button, and it would be just as correct and do just as much for everyone. Most things don't work. You're far better off if you can jump in when you see something interesting that you have some reason to believe has a better chance than usual, and especially if it has a better chance than the other people around the table might realize. [bold added]

The old saw that It's easy to be a critic jumped into my mind after reading this, but this is accurate only in the sense that tearing things down is easy to do.

It's hard to be a constructive critic, which is what I believe Lowe is aiming at.

To borrow an apt golf metaphor about value vs threat orientation: Sure, watch out for the sand traps and water hazards; but don't forget that there are holes to shoot for.

-- CAV